It would put a relatively appealing bow on what even the hardiest NHL hockey supporter would have trouble regarding as a “gift.”

Still, like the climax of the romantic comedy Sleepless in Seattle where Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan finally meet atop the Empire State Building on New Year’s Eve, a deal to end hostilities between NHL owners and players on the final day of 2012 would be a present to headline writers across North America and would start the new year in style for many hockey fans who have missed watching the world’s best league in action.

Just don’t bet your favourite Christmas swag on it happening.

The two sides will meet Monday in New York for the first time in four weeks, with the players having just missed their sixth paycheque of what would have been the 2012-13 hockey season.

The weekend was spent with exchanges of information between the sides after the NHL delivered a new 288-page proposal to the NHL Players’ Association on Thursday, but no actual bargaining.

That may or may not happen Monday when the union is expected to table a counteroffer, one which could take this process in three directions.

One, it might contain real movement towards the league’s position and spur an extended negotiating session to reach a new collective bargaining agreement, maybe even before the ball drops in Times Square to bring in the new year.

Two, the counteroffer might enrage the NHL by containing a new list of requests and/or demands, which is basically what happened the last time there was seeming momentum towards getting a deal done.

Three, the league could tell the union that it’s the players’ turn to cool their heels for a change, and elect to take the offer away to think about it for a few days. Implicit in that approach, of course, would be the league daring the union to follow through on a legal threat to begin dissolving itself by a Jan. 2 court deadline.

There are so many moving parts in this dialogue now that anything, really, is possible, even moreso given the strained relations that have had both sides questioning the motives and honesty of the other for months.

Some things are in place. A 50-50 split on money. A chunk of cash, currently at $300 million, that would go from the owners to the players to ease their landing into a new economic reality.

Then there’s lots up for grabs, the most contentious of which are the term of the new CBA — the league wants 10 years, the players don’t want to go longer than seven — and the length of any individual contract, which the NHL wants to set at six years.

After that, it gets even more complicated with the so-called transition issues, namely where the salary cap is set, amnesty buyouts, new rules on re-entry waivers and myriad other system rules.

But really, the main issue is gauging exactly where this process is now, and how much can be gained by either side in waiting longer for what appears to be a deal that will certainly get done.

In 2005, the season was cancelled on Feb. 16. In theory, then, Don Fehr and the players could imagine that there’s at least another month left to stretch this out until the owners actually deliver their best offer.

But that would cost another two paycheques. And do the key remaining issues actually affect enough players to make it worthwhile, or just the stars? For the league, there’s clearly a desire to get a deal done now. Something agreed upon in the next 72 hours might even make a 52-game season possible, not just a 48-gamer.

But do Gary Bettman and Co. actually want it bad enough to swallow their pride if the union comes back Monday and wants to dicker?

Both the owners and players have had a terrible time in this process accurately reading the motives and intentions of the other, so there’s little reason to believe they can do that now or find a way to accurately communicate their best offers to each other.

Cutting Fehr and Bettman out of the process didn’t work, although it did bring the sides closer together. Mediation didn’t help, and a special UN envoy might not even be able to navigate the gulf of distrust that exists here.

At some point, it’s going to come down to a leap of faith, a willingness by one side to take what the other side is saying at face value.

Right now, neither side seems to want to accept the last offer from the enemy and call a truce. Both need to be able to convince their constituencies that the best deal possible was achieved, and it’s likely nobody will be particularly happy when it’s all over.

Doesn’t sound like a recipe for a lovely New Year’s Eve surprise, does it? Rather, stretching the agony out for at least another few days seems the safe bet.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.